California WCABLaw firm

Law Office of Christina Lopez

Law Office of Christina Lopez is named in 12 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to Temporary disability (3), AOE/COE (1) and Jurisdiction / venue (1). They were heard most often at Oakland, then Lodi. The firm it meets most often is Laughlin, Falbo, Levy & Moresi (3).

Decisions: 12
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 7
District offices: 2

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 12 of 12 agree. It is our reading of the record, not the firm’s description of itself.

What they litigate

Disputed issues across the decisions this firm is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.

Who they face

5 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Oakland 11
Lodi 1

How the appealed decisions came out

These are decisions that were appealed and published — the tail of a system that mostly settles. Most claims end in a compromise and release or a stipulation and never reach a panel, so nothing below describes how this firm does its work. It describes how a set of appealed disputes came out.

5 for the applicant
4 for the defense
2 returned for more record

Counted over 11 appealed decisions. Not this firm’s book of work.

Decisions

Newest decisions this firm is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

ADJ15732786 · 2026-05-22 · Lodi District OfficeQME/AME processremanded
Determinative passage · p.8Next, the F&O fails to list materials to be reviewed by the QME by their exhibit letter designation and instead lists them by a different letter which creates confusion. Even with respect to the exhibits that contained over a thousand pages, the WCJ made no attempt to cull the relevant materials and merely states that the records that were not admitted were "not relevant, duplicative, overly burdensome, or their prejudicial effect outweighed their probative value." The decision failed to explain the basis for admitting or excluding each potential exhibit into evidence, and just as significantly, the decision failed to provide a second analysis as to why each document would be provided to the QME, thereby depriving the parties of any meaningful review on the merits.
The WCJ failed to adequately explain the basis for admitting or excluding each exhibit and which materials should be provided to the QME, depriving the parties of meaningful review. The F&O was rescinded and the matter remanded for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 8 →
ADJ17937030 · 2025-11-04 · Oakland District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5A decision must be based on admitted evidence in the record and must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274, 281 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 317 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627, 637 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) Where the issue in dispute is a medical one, expert medical evidence is ordinarily needed to resolve the issue. (Insurance Co. of North America v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 905, 912 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 913]; Peter Kiewit Sons v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 831, 838 [30 Cal.Comp.Cases 188].)
The PQME's expert medical opinion was found to be substantial evidence supporting the WCJ's findings, and defendant failed to provide rebuttal medical evidence or properly investigate before trial.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ15306840 · 2025-05-27 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the "Findings and Order and Opinion on Decision" (F&O) issued on February 11, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that the facts and medical evidence were irreconcilable in this case and found no substantial medical evidence proving industrial injury. The WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing on his claim.
The Appeals Board found that the WCJ erred in relying on a QME's summary of subrosa video not in evidence to discredit applicant's credibility and that the medical evidence supported industrial injury. The matter was returned for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ17040974 · 2025-02-21 · Oakland District OfficeTemporary disabilitymixed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of our December 2, 2024 Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration (O&O) wherein we granted reconsideration of an August 8, 2024 Findings, Award, and Orders (FA&O) and rescinded and substituted the FA&O with a new FA&O which found applicant was entitled to temporary total disability for the period from September 1, 2022 through April 26, 2023 and ongoing, subject to the 104 week cap under Labor Code1 section 4656(c)(2).
The Appeals Board found that the applicant was entitled to temporary total disability benefits for the period from September 1, 2022 through April 26, 2023 and ongoing, subject to the 104 week cap, rejecting the defendant's argument that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof to show intent to work after retirement. The matter was remanded solely to address reasonable attorney fees related to the award.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ17040974 · 2024-12-02 · Oakland District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5Applicant, however, was found temporarily totally disabled and continuing by Panel QME, Dr. Kyle Natsuhara, in his December 5, 2023 report. (Exhibit 11, pp. 18-19.) Applicant was also found temporarily totally disabled during the period from June 8, 2023 through May 16, 2024 by primary treating physician, Dr. David Suarez. (Exhibits 1-7.) Further, during applicant's August 19, 2024 trial testimony, applicant testified to a willingness and intent to return to work but for the work injury and noted that at the time of the April 19, 2023 deposition, she was still recovering from surgery and was therefore not thinking about work. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH & SOE, August 19, 2024, pp. 5-6; Report, p. 5.) At trial, applicant also testified that any thoughts of a permanent move to Mexico post-retirement "was only a dream." (Report, p. 5.)
Applicant was found temporarily totally disabled by both the panel QME and primary treating physician, and testified willingness to return to work but for the injury, distinguishing her case from precedent where retirement was stipulated; thus, she met her burden for temporary disability benefits entitlement.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ17195883 · 2024-12-02 · Oakland District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3It is undisputed that "since no benefits have been provided to applicant, the only applicable limitation is one year from the May 4, 2021 claimed date of the injury." (F&O, Opinion on Decision, p. 10 citing Lab. Code, § 5405(a).) Applicant filed his claim on January 18, 2023. (Application for Adjudication, January 18, 2023.) Therefore, applicant's claim was filed more than one year from the May 4, 2021 claimed date of injury.
The WCJ's decision to bar the claim based on the statute of limitations was not supported by substantial evidence because the defendant failed to provide sufficient proof that the DWC-1 claim form and notice were properly mailed and received by the applicant. New evidence showed returned mail to the applicant's address, undermining the presumption of proper service.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ13053362 · 2023-12-01 · Oakland District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded
Determinative passage · p.5Here, as quoted above, in his November 7, 2022 report, (referring to his July 15, 2022 report), Dr. Rutchik stated that in his January 27, 2022 report he had concluded that applicant's condition had reached MMI status "with 100% of his impairment attributed to the industrial activities; however, given his continued pain and difficulties, I would concur that the applicant is TTD at this time.... Therefore, I would opine that the applicant was TTD since at least February of 2022." (Joint Exh. 102, p. 11.) Clearly, Dr. Rutchik stated his conclusion but did not set forth the reasoning or the basis for his opinion. It appears that his only explanation for changing his previously stated opinion that applicant had reached MMI status was applicant's "continued pain and difficulties." However, "[a] temporary disability is an impairment reasonably expected to be cured or improved with proper medical treatment." (Signature Fruit Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.; Chavira v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
Dr. Rutchik's reports lacked sufficient explanation and reasoning for his opinion that applicant was temporarily totally disabled since February 2022, thus not constituting substantial evidence. The Appeals Board found the record insufficient and remanded for further development.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ14466674 · 2022-03-08 · Oakland District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3A review of EAMS reflects applicant filed a Declaration of Readiness (hereinafter referred to as "DOR") on 10/12/2021 identifying temporary disability as the issue and requesting an expedited hearing. Defendant did not file an Objection. The matter came on my expedited hearing calendar on 11/09/2021. Counsel for applicant appeared telephonically as did defense counsel. Applicant did not appear. There was no objection to the matter being held virtually. Defendant objected to the expedited hearing proceeding partly on lack of notice as to the particular period of temporary disability. Defendant also objected to the expedited hearing proceeding because it requested the opportunity to cross-examine applicant regarding medical treatment, employment subsequent to the date of injury, and income. Applicant was not present for the hearing. Defendant
Defendant did not subpoena or serve notice to applicant to appear at hearing, thus did not avail itself of cross-examination opportunity; no good cause for continuance found; defendant was not denied due process.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ14382634 · 2025-11-04 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order of continuance issued on July 28, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).
The Appeals Board denied removal because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12997932 · 2025-09-24 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on June 2, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).
The petition for removal was dismissed as moot because the parties filed a proposed settlement and requested approval, making further removal proceedings unnecessary.
Official decision · page 1 →

Also recorded as

The same firm is printed several ways across the decisions, and all of them were counted as one. This is every spelling behind the figures above.

LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTINA LOPEZ
Law Office of Christina Lopez
LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTINA LOPEZ
LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTINA LOPEZ LAW

Is this your firm and something here is wrong? Tell us and we will fix it. Every figure on this page is a count of released decisions this firm is named in, and the decisions themselves are listed above with the passage each turned on.

Also on this

Private workspace

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.

Start a matter Search without an account →

Law Office of Christina Lopez

Decisions

Years

2021–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

5 for the applicant

4 for the defense

2 returned for more record

Counted over 11 appealed decisions. Not this firm’s book of work.

Decisions

Newest decisions this firm is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

ADJ15732786 · 2026-05-22 · Lodi District OfficeQME/AME processremanded

Determinative passage · p.8Next, the F&O fails to list materials to be reviewed by the QME by their exhibit letter designation and instead lists them by a different letter which creates confusion. Even with respect to the exhibits that contained over a thousand pages, the WCJ made no attempt to cull the relevant materials and merely states that the records that were not admitted were "not relevant, duplicative, overly burdensome, or their prejudicial effect outweighed their probative value." The decision failed to explain the basis for admitting or excluding each potential exhibit into evidence, and just as significantly, the decision failed to provide a second analysis as to why each document would be provided to the QME, thereby depriving the parties of any meaningful review on the merits.

The WCJ failed to adequately explain the basis for admitting or excluding each exhibit and which materials should be provided to the QME, depriving the parties of meaningful review. The F&O was rescinded and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

Official decision · page 8 →

ADJ17937030 · 2025-11-04 · Oakland District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5A decision must be based on admitted evidence in the record and must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274, 281 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 317 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627, 637 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) Where the issue in dispute is a medical one, expert medical evidence is ordinarily needed to resolve the issue. (Insurance Co. of North America v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 905, 912 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 913]; Peter Kiewit Sons v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 831, 838 [30 Cal.Comp.Cases 188].)

The PQME's expert medical opinion was found to be substantial evidence supporting the WCJ's findings, and defendant failed to provide rebuttal medical evidence or properly investigate before trial.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ15306840 · 2025-05-27 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the "Findings and Order and Opinion on Decision" (F&O) issued on February 11, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that the facts and medical evidence were irreconcilable in this case and found no substantial medical evidence proving industrial injury. The WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing on his claim.

The Appeals Board found that the WCJ erred in relying on a QME's summary of subrosa video not in evidence to discredit applicant's credibility and that the medical evidence supported industrial injury. The matter was returned for further proceedings.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ17040974 · 2025-02-21 · Oakland District OfficeTemporary disabilitymixed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of our December 2, 2024 Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration (O&O) wherein we granted reconsideration of an August 8, 2024 Findings, Award, and Orders (FA&O) and rescinded and substituted the FA&O with a new FA&O which found applicant was entitled to temporary total disability for the period from September 1, 2022 through April 26, 2023 and ongoing, subject to the 104 week cap under Labor Code1 section 4656(c)(2).

The Appeals Board found that the applicant was entitled to temporary total disability benefits for the period from September 1, 2022 through April 26, 2023 and ongoing, subject to the 104 week cap, rejecting the defendant's argument that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof to show intent to work after retirement. The matter was remanded solely to address reasonable attorney fees related to the award.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ17040974 · 2024-12-02 · Oakland District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5Applicant, however, was found temporarily totally disabled and continuing by Panel QME, Dr. Kyle Natsuhara, in his December 5, 2023 report. (Exhibit 11, pp. 18-19.) Applicant was also found temporarily totally disabled during the period from June 8, 2023 through May 16, 2024 by primary treating physician, Dr. David Suarez. (Exhibits 1-7.) Further, during applicant's August 19, 2024 trial testimony, applicant testified to a willingness and intent to return to work but for the work injury and noted that at the time of the April 19, 2023 deposition, she was still recovering from surgery and was therefore not thinking about work. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH & SOE, August 19, 2024, pp. 5-6; Report, p. 5.) At trial, applicant also testified that any thoughts of a permanent move to Mexico post-retirement "was only a dream." (Report, p. 5.)

Applicant was found temporarily totally disabled by both the panel QME and primary treating physician, and testified willingness to return to work but for the injury, distinguishing her case from precedent where retirement was stipulated; thus, she met her burden for temporary disability benefits entitlement.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ17195883 · 2024-12-02 · Oakland District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3It is undisputed that "since no benefits have been provided to applicant, the only applicable limitation is one year from the May 4, 2021 claimed date of the injury." (F&O, Opinion on Decision, p. 10 citing Lab. Code, § 5405(a).) Applicant filed his claim on January 18, 2023. (Application for Adjudication, January 18, 2023.) Therefore, applicant's claim was filed more than one year from the May 4, 2021 claimed date of injury.

The WCJ's decision to bar the claim based on the statute of limitations was not supported by substantial evidence because the defendant failed to provide sufficient proof that the DWC-1 claim form and notice were properly mailed and received by the applicant. New evidence showed returned mail to the applicant's address, undermining the presumption of proper service.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ13053362 · 2023-12-01 · Oakland District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded

Determinative passage · p.5Here, as quoted above, in his November 7, 2022 report, (referring to his July 15, 2022 report), Dr. Rutchik stated that in his January 27, 2022 report he had concluded that applicant's condition had reached MMI status "with 100% of his impairment attributed to the industrial activities; however, given his continued pain and difficulties, I would concur that the applicant is TTD at this time.... Therefore, I would opine that the applicant was TTD since at least February of 2022." (Joint Exh. 102, p. 11.) Clearly, Dr. Rutchik stated his conclusion but did not set forth the reasoning or the basis for his opinion. It appears that his only explanation for changing his previously stated opinion that applicant had reached MMI status was applicant's "continued pain and difficulties." However, "[a] temporary disability is an impairment reasonably expected to be cured or improved with proper medical treatment." (Signature Fruit Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.; Chavira v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

Dr. Rutchik's reports lacked sufficient explanation and reasoning for his opinion that applicant was temporarily totally disabled since February 2022, thus not constituting substantial evidence. The Appeals Board found the record insufficient and remanded for further development.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ14466674 · 2022-03-08 · Oakland District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3A review of EAMS reflects applicant filed a Declaration of Readiness (hereinafter referred to as "DOR") on 10/12/2021 identifying temporary disability as the issue and requesting an expedited hearing. Defendant did not file an Objection. The matter came on my expedited hearing calendar on 11/09/2021. Counsel for applicant appeared telephonically as did defense counsel. Applicant did not appear. There was no objection to the matter being held virtually. Defendant objected to the expedited hearing proceeding partly on lack of notice as to the particular period of temporary disability. Defendant also objected to the expedited hearing proceeding because it requested the opportunity to cross-examine applicant regarding medical treatment, employment subsequent to the date of injury, and income. Applicant was not present for the hearing. Defendant

Defendant did not subpoena or serve notice to applicant to appear at hearing, thus did not avail itself of cross-examination opportunity; no good cause for continuance found; defendant was not denied due process.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ14382634 · 2025-11-04 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order of continuance issued on July 28, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).

The Appeals Board denied removal because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12997932 · 2025-09-24 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on June 2, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).

The petition for removal was dismissed as moot because the parties filed a proposed settlement and requested approval, making further removal proceedings unnecessary.

Official decision · page 1 →